미국에서 검색중립성과 표현의 자유에 관한 법적 논쟁
Some Thoughts on Legal Controversies over Search Neutrality and Free Speech in the United States
0
조회
0
다운로드
4
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Courts have consistently sided with search engines in cases involving search biases in the United States. Courts explicitly or implicitly regarded search results as speeches protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Academic discussions are divided, however, in favor of the opposite. Despite some decisional elements in the search algorithm, search result is usually a tool for users as locational index of web pages. Search engine usually does not make opinion to persuade viewers to a particular site. We may say page rank is an opinion over the relevance of the web page to search terms. This however does not purport to persuade or influence others, which is an important element for the free market of ideas. It is also ironic that the anti-SLAPP Act, originally aimed to boost individual participation in the public issues, may be used for the defence of big enterprises in the suit brought by small enterprises or individuals. The Korean Government produced Guidelines on Search Engines, which recommended, among others, periodic report of fair and transparent algorithmic criteria. The Government also got consent commitments from major domestic search engines. The actions are a bit proactive in regulating the behavior of search engines. The author supports the Korean approach in consideration of the general function of search engines and the more prevalent editorial practices of local search engines.
Abstract
Courts have consistently sided with search engines in cases involving search biases in the United States. Courts explicitly or implicitly regarded search results as speeches protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Academic discussions are divided, however, in favor of the opposite. Despite some decisional elements in the search algorithm, search result is usually a tool for users as locational index of web pages. Search engine usually does not make opinion to persuade viewers to a particular site. We may say page rank is an opinion over the relevance of the web page to search terms. This however does not purport to persuade or influence others, which is an important element for the free market of ideas. It is also ironic that the anti-SLAPP Act, originally aimed to boost individual participation in the public issues, may be used for the defence of big enterprises in the suit brought by small enterprises or individuals. The Korean Government produced Guidelines on Search Engines, which recommended, among others, periodic report of fair and transparent algorithmic criteria. The Government also got consent commitments from major domestic search engines. The actions are a bit proactive in regulating the behavior of search engines. The author supports the Korean approach in consideration of the general function of search engines and the more prevalent editorial practices of local search engines.
참고문헌 (31)
- 공정거래위원회, "네이버(주) 및 네이버비즈니스플랫폼(주)의 시장지배적지위남용행위 등에 대한 건 관련 동의의결에 대한 건, 사건번호2014서감0595, 2014서감0596(병합)", ~ (2014)
- 공정거래위원회, "(주)다음커뮤니케이션의 시장지배적지위 남용행위 등에 대한 건관련 동의의결에 대한 건, 사건번호 2014서감0594", ~ (2014)
- 곽주원, "검색 중립성에 대한 논의", 경쟁법연구, 28, pp.246~273 (2013), 한국경쟁법학회
- 김정환, "인터넷상 표현의 자유와 전략적 봉쇄소송(SLAPP)", 안암법학, (43), pp.953~987 (2014), 안암법학회
- 미래창조과학부, "보도자료: 미래부, 인터넷 검색서비스 발전을 위한 권고안 발표", ~ (2013)
- 정찬모, "망 중립성 규제의 기본권적 고찰", 안암법학, (43), pp.373~408 (2014), 안암법학회
- Marvin Ammori, "Competitors’ Proposed Remedies for Search Bias: Search ‘Neutrality’ and Other Proposals", Journal of Internet Law, 15, pp.1~ (2012)
- C. Edwin Baker, "Human Liberty and Freedom of Speech" (1989), Oxford University Press
- Jack M. Balkin, "Old-School", New-School Speech Regulation, 2014, pp.127, 2296~
- Jane Bambauer, "Is Data Speech?", Stanford Law Review, 66, pp.57~ (2014)
- Stuart M. Benjamin, "Algorithms and Speech", University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 161, pp.1445~ (2013)
- Josh Blackman, "What Happens if Data Is Speech?", Journal of Constitutional Law Heightened Scrutiny, 16, pp.25~ (2014)
- Bracha, "Federal Search Commission? Access, Fairness, and Accountability in the Law of Search", Cornell Law Review, 93, pp.1149~ (2008)
- Thomas F. Cotter, "Some Observations on the Law and Economics of Intermediaries", Michigan State Law Review, 2006, pp.67~ (2006)
- Daniel A. Crane, "After Search Neutrality: Drawing a Line between Promotion and Demotion", I, 2014, pp.9(3), ~
- Richard Epstein, "The Irrelevance of the First Amendment to the Modern Regulation of the Internet", ICARUS, (Fall) (2013)
- Antitrust: Commission obtains from Google comparable display of specialised search, "European Commission", ~ (2014)
- Eric Goldman, "Search Engine Bias and the Demise of Search Engine Utopianism", Yale Journal of Law & Technology, 8, pp.188~ (2006)
- James Grimmelmann, "The Structure of Search Engine Law", Iowa Law Review, 93, pp.1~ (2007)
- Speech Engines, "James Grimmelmann", ~, pp.University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2014-11 (2014)
- Platform Neutrality: Building an open and sustainable digital environment, "French Digital Council", ~, pp.Opinion no. 2014-2 (2014)
- FTC, "Statement of the Federal Trade Commission Regarding Google’s Search Practices - In the Matter of Google Inc", ~ (2013)
- FTC, "FTC Consumer Protection Staff Updates Agency's Guidance to Search Engine Industry on the Need to Distinguish Between Advertisements and Search Results", ~ (2013)
- Emily B. Laidlaw, "Private Power, Public Interest: An Examination of Search Engine Accountability", International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 17, pp.113~ (2008)
- William P. Marshall, "In Defence of the Search for Truth as a First Amendment Justification", Georgia Law Review, 30, pp.1~ (1995)
- Robert Post, "Encryption Source Code and the First Amendment", Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 15, pp.713~ (2000)
- Joseph Raz, "Free Expression and Personal Identification", Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 11, pp.303~ (1991)
- Cass R. Sunstein, "Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech" (1993), The Free Press
- Google: First Amendment Protection for Search Engine Search Results, "Eugene Volokh", UCLA, ~, pp.UCLA School of Law Research Paper No. 12-22 (2012)
- Tim Wu, "Machine Speech", University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 161, pp.1495~ (2013)
- Christopher S. Yoo, "Free Speech and the Myth of the Internet as an Unintermediated Experience", George Washington Law Review, 78, pp.697~ (2010)